Newsweek: AG Holder leaning towards special prosecutor for torture!

[NewJeffCT]

Great news if it happens. Edited to add - it's a long, four-page article...

Independent’s Day

Obama doesn't want to look back, but Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture anyway.

It's the morning after Independence Day, and Eric Holder Jr. is feeling the weight of history. The night before, he'd stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. "I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about," he says. Now, sitting at his kitchen table in jeans and a gray polo shirt, as his 11-year-old son, Buddy, dashes in and out of the room, Holder is reflecting on his own role. He doesn't dwell on the fact that he's the country's first black attorney general. He is focused instead on the tension that the best of his predecessors have confronted: how does one faithfully serve both the law and the president?

Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/206300

[Political Heretic]

1. Wow. Somehow we need to keep track of this story. This is great news if it happens!

First really hopeful news I've heard in months.

[Political Heretic]

2. Opps forgot to recommend. K&R

[BlooInBloo]

3. Here's the part that discusses the possibility of prosecutors...

"The next few weeks, though, could test Holder's confidence. After the prospect of torture investigations seemed to lose momentum in April, the attorney general and his aides turned to other pressing issues. They were preoccupied with Gitmo, developing a hugely complex new set of detention and prosecution policies, and putting out the daily fires that go along with running a 110,000-person department. The regular meetings Holder's team had been having on the torture question died down. Some aides began to wonder whether the idea of appointing a prosecutor was off the table.

But in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general's thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as "the dark side." He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue."

[NewJeffCT]

4. A special prosecutor would free up his Justice Department

from having to worry about torture - they could focus on all the other pressing issues.

[HopeOverFear]

9. this right here...

He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as "the dark side." He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue."

...is a movie scene. I can just picture it.

[BlooInBloo]

11. It so sounds like a movie. "All The President's Torturers", perhaps.

[HopeOverFear]

13. I knoooow! LOL

I can picture the next scene: HOlder's in the Oval Office with the President, just the two of them, and Holder says to Obama: "We have to appoint a special prosecutor, Mr. President".

[Usrename]

17. Sure. He is an asshole.

After seven years he decides to become "shocked and saddened." What a fuckwad.

[northernlights]

22. huh?

Holder hasn't been Attorney General for 7 years. Not even 7 months. He spent 2 days reviewing the reports. Not 7 years.

[Usrename]

28. Right.

He looked the other way for seven years. What do you think the radical left has been complaining about for seven years? Do you think that because of the fact that he chose to ignore those complaints that he is absolved?

Are you another one of those folks who argued for taking impeachment off the table? Just curious, it would seem to fit your comment.

[NewJeffCT]

29. Eric Holder was not running the justice department the last 7 years

With Democrats in Congress afraid to even enforce subpoenas to testify, what could Holder have done in his position when he wasn't even in Congress? Democrats don't even have much of a platform in the media to state their positions these days, despite now holding the presidency and strong majorities in both the House & Senate. Before January of this year, they had even less of a platform.

[Usrename]

30. You're probably right here. Let's wait and see if he does anything.

If he redeems himself through his actions moving forward then he can join the ranks of Scotty McClellan, Wendell Potter, and some others who have recently had their epiphany.

I keep forgetting that I was asleep too, before I was gently awakened by some very wise and thoughtful posters... many of them on this site.

[Arkana]

32. Would Holder be played by Denzel Washington?

[chill_wind]

5. Kick, rec and bookmarked. So far, Holder has mostly

been the master of the "possibly, maybe" message. Let's hope something finally galvanizes soon.
And that fortifications like Dawn Johnsen can finally be muscled through instead of left twisting in the wind.
Statutes for certain key evidence of older BUSHCO crimes are getting ready to run in mere months.

[bvar22]

6. Stop "leaning"....

...and start "doing".

And while you are at it, take a look into the Don Siegelman prosecution in Alabama.

[NewJeffCT]

7. I know - so many things to investigate

does Siegelman's case also need a special prosecutor?

[polichick]

23. Maybe the "leaning" is about testing public opinion. I'm with you - start doing what's right. nt

[Parker CA]

8. Great article! I wish I could have a clearer sense of what Holder's actions will likely be, but

the article is penned in a way to purposely keep the ambiguity center-stage. Arguments could be made for both decision, but my hope is that while gazing out his office window, Holder decided he must appoint a special prosecutor and take on these crimes. I'm sure he doesn't want to look back on this one like he does on the Marc Rich decision and regret his actions.

[PretzelWarrior]

10. this is a good direction. let's just see how it plays out.

[mvd]

12. K&R

I feel it is necessary to look back in this case.

[Beetwasher]

14. Yup

I never doubted. People think he just snaps his fingers. He's a professional. He needed to get in there, take a look around, see what the hell was going on, see what he had to work with an decide how he could proceed w/ investigations that hopefully lead to indictments and THEN prosecutions and THEN convictions. I wish people realized the unbelievable detailed groundwork that is necessary to pursue these sorts of things. ESPECIALLY something as intense and sensitive and steeped in nat sec as this.

[tomp]

15. how about one for warrantless wiretapping while you're at it, mr holder.

you have a nationally broadcast confession. it's a slam dunk.

[Beetwasher]

16. How About You Hold Onto Your Hat?

Yes, I know, we're impatient. But these things need meticulous preparation in order to be processed and PURSUED competently and EFFECTIVELY.

Remember, it was Mr. Holder who said the following:

The choices that are being made by those conservatives, those neo-conservatives, who control all three branches of our government, threaten to undermine the real progress that this nation has made in so many areas over so many years. With all due respect to President Reagan, the problem is not government. The problem is with those who run the government. In the struggle against terrorism, these people have made a mockery of the rule of law.

The notion that the Department of Justice would in essence sanction the use of torture as part of the President’s plenary power over military operations is as wrong as it is shortsighted. This position flies in the face of the entire history of American law, helping to create a climate in which unnecessarily abusive conduct can somehow be considered
legitimate.

And this:

Throughout this nation’s history, it has been liberals who have pushed the envelope, who have taken chances, who have made this nation better than it was. By contrast, and we see this especially today, conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities.

[CATagious]

18. I found this part interesting:

Emanuel's response to the torture memos should not have surprised Holder. In the months since the inauguration, the relationship between the Justice Department and the White House had been marred by surprising tension and acrimony. A certain amount of friction is inherent in the relationship, even healthy. But in the Obama administration the bad blood between the camps has at times been striking. The first detonation occurred in only the third week of the administration, soon after a Justice lawyer walked into a courtroom in California and argued that a lawsuit, brought by a British detainee who was alleging torture, should have been thrown out on national-security grounds. By invoking the "state secrets" privilege, the lawyer was reaffirming a position staked out by the Bush administration. The move provoked an uproar among liberals and human-rights groups. It also infuriated Obama, who learned about it from the front page of The New York Times. "This is not the way I like to make decisions," he icily told aides, according to two administration officials, who declined to be identified discussing the president's private reactions. White House officials were livid and accused the Justice Department of sandbagging the president. Justice officials countered that they'd notified the White House counsel's office about the position they had planned to take.

Weren't there threads of outrage of how Obama was just like Bush for invoking "state secrets" as a defense??

[guruoo]

19. When it's wrong, blame Obama, when it's right it must have happened in spite of him...

:rofl:

[HopeOverFear]

20. Exactly. Obama couldn't POSSIBLY be in favor or prosecuting war criminals

:rofl:

[guruoo]

27. No, was refering to what seems to have become the perpetual Obama critic's SOP, i.e,

when an administration official does something disagreeable, blame it on Obama,
when they do something agreeable, say it must have happened in spite of Obama.

[redqueen]

34. I've noticed that same pattern. (nt)

[guruoo]

42. Can also be heard coming from a certain cable news network. n/t

[HopeOverFear]

38. Oh I know! I was agreeing with you

That looked like snark, I apologize, I was agreeing with you LOL :)

[guruoo]

41. Oh, we''re cool...

:hi:

[annabanana]

33. It is to his advantage not to be SEEN as being in favor of prosecuting

the previous administration. He has to be seen as being FORCED to do it. This isn't too hard to understand, the media being what it is.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. He said he's leaving it up to the Attorney General

It's not so much that he needs to be seen as being forced to do it but he doesn't want the appearance that the White House ordered the Justice Department to prosecute a former Republican administration for political retribution. Leaving it to the discretion of the Attorney General depoliticizes it at least somewhat.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Yea I think the title is a bit misleading

The President said in regard to prosecuting the previous administration's crimes "I'm leaving that decision up to the Attorney General". I see nothing wrong with leaving it up to the country's chief law enforcement official to determine whether or not the government has a good enough case to prosecute.

[NewJeffCT]

21. Please recommend the article on Yahoo, too

Here is the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090712/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_holder_interrogations

[ErinBerin84]

24. they mentioned this on ABC this morning

George's "own sources" confirmed it to him as well. I'll echo what others say that he needs to do more than "lean" and actually do it, and that I'll believe it when I see it. I can see merit in the argument that it could politically set back Obama's agenda,but honestly, it's not like the Republicans haven't already declared war on Obama's agenda, and if we don't investigate this, we will see a repeat of it in the future.

[NewJeffCT]

25. Agreed - if we don't prosecute

then, these same criminals will just return in 2017 or 2021... it's how Republicans work.

How many Reagan-era convicts ended up in the Bush White House? Quite a few, if I recall.

[GeorgeGist]

26. If Obama looked back ...

he might notice the semi coming to flatten him like an armidillo in the middle of the road.

[mullard12ax7]

31. As if all the evidence isn't collected yet?

Or as in the U.S. will find insufficient evidence and let all the war criminals go? Welcome to the show, everyone pays except the people running it.

[chill_wind]

35. Holder v Rahm. Lots of interesting subtext.

Some good additional reading/discussion:

Holder v Rahm. The Torture Fight (Emptywheel)

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/07/11/holder-v-rahm-the-torture-fight/

[solstice]

36. Oh great - more meaningless "bad cop good cop" bullshit. Upholding the Constitution should be non-

negotiable.

[dana_b]

37. good article

I hope he does more than consider it. The time is passing quickly and we can't take a chance that these atrocities are repeated in the future.